Disposed

Rahul Pooniya S/O Nanda Ram Pooniya (Minor) v. the Commissioner, Jaipur Nagar Nigam

Rajasthan HC19 Mar 2025CW/7805/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to change date of birth in the petitioner's birth certificate. The court held the grounds were factual, requiring evidence before a Civil Court, and that Article 226 jurisdiction does not permit recording evidence. Petition disposed of with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to seek remedy before the Civil Court; no direction granted to change date of birth.

Rahul Pooniya S/O Nanda Ram Pooniya (Minor) Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:12448]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7805/2024

¶4

Rahul Pooniya S/o Nanda Ram Pooniya (Minor), Aged About 16 Years, Through His Natural Guardian, Father Nanda Ram Pooniya S/o Shri Chuna Ram Punia, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Pooniyon Ki Dhani, Sarang Ka Bas, Durjania Bas, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Commissioner, Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.

¶8

The Registrar, Registration Of Birth And Deaths, Doorjaniyavas, Panchyat Samiti, Jothwara, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

19/03/2025

¶14

No one has put in appearance on behalf of petitioner.

¶15

Instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner (minor through his natural guardian- father), seeking direction against respondents to change the date of birth of petitioner in his birth certificate dated 11.11.2021, from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2008.

¶16

From perusal of the facts and grounds pleaded in the writ petition, seeking to change the date of birth in the birth certificate, it appears that all such grounds are factual, which requires to be established by the petitioner by way of adducing

[2025:RJ-JP:12448]

[CW-7805/2024]

(2 of 2)

evidence and summoning the record of the Government Department/ Hospital.

¶21

This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner ought to have availed the remedy before the Civil Court, however, without availing the same, petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The recording of evidence and appreciation of factual aspect/ evidence, is not permissible by this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

With the aforesaid observation/ liberty, instant writ petition is hereby disposed of.

¶23

Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶24

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶25

Sachin/52

Rahul Pooniya S/O Nanda Ram Pooniya (Minor) v. the Commissioner, Jaipur Nagar Nigam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Pooniya S/O Nanda Ram Pooniya (Minor) v. the Commissioner, Jaipur Nagar Nigam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhey Shyam Dadhich Son of Shri Shivdutt Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhamu Lal Son of Moti Lal Vs the Chief Managing Director/Chairman

Babu Lal Saini S/O Shri Gyarsi Lal Saini Vs Rajasthan State Co-Operative Tribunal

Smt Sajjan Kanwar Vs Addi District and Session Ors.

Suresh Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajesh Singh and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.